QA Working Group Teleconference
Monday, 15-March-2004
--
Scribe: [Karl Dubost]
Attendees:
(PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems)
(DD) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
(DH) Dominique HazaÅ½l-Massieux (W3C)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
(DM) Dave Marston (IBM) by QA IG virtue
Regrets:
(MC) Martin Chamberlain (Microsoft)
(VV) Vanitha Venkatraman (Sun Microsystems) (Permanent Regrets for now)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
(AT) Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)
Absent:
(SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)
Summary of New Action Items:
No new action items
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2004Mar/0041
Previous Telcon Minutes:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2004Mar/0032
Abstract:
Patrick Curran has presented the New Spec GL Lite outline and has
looked forward the opinion of the QA WG on
- which parts belong to the Handbook (old-OpsGL)
- Which parts belong to Test GL Lite
- which parts of Test GL Lite should be mandatory.
The WG has agreed to have a practical part which is mandatory, and to
put all the process things in a non normative guide in the document.
Chairs are asking about the next F2F in June and its location.
Proposals have to be sent before the end of the week. Please give your
schedule constraints.
Minutes:
* F2F Minutes organization
DHM: LH, is someone assigned to format the minutes of the F2F in a
unique document?
KD: olivier
LH: I assume that olivier would do it as always.
* Test GL Lite - New Proposal
LH: We have one item on the agenda, which will be mainly done by
Patrick about the reformatting of Test and Ops GL.
PC: I have been concerned since the begining by the overlap between the
two documents TestGL and OpsGL. I have tried to define the class of
products for Test GL (Test Lite now). At the start CoP was only test
cases and not process, but we broaden it a bit. Adding things little by
little seems to be a bit awkward. In TestGL, I have decided to add
things which were completely dedicated to the process of building a
test suite. First of all, I have identified 4 GLs
1st versioning, errata in your QA deliverables.
2nd: Your test materials are usable for their intended purpose
3rd: GL 6.3 of Ops GL is related to testGL
4th: 8.1 is related to TestGL directly. and 8.2 procedure
identification.
This implies that Test GL contains at the same time informations for
the content of tests and Process (non normative) in this document.
Anything which is an operational method should go in Test GL. If we
accept this, I would like that TestGL, there's a formal process, but in
a non normative way. (resources, scope of your tests, management of the
development process, etc.
KD: Test GL Lite - Does that mean there are a handbook and a more
technical part?
PC: Yes, it might be a reasonnable way to put it. Normative part on
what's going inside a test suite, and the part which is not normative
and how to organize your TS.
LR: It looks like "Good Practices" of using Test Development and
Creating them.
PC: What are your ideas about it?
LR: I like this idea to have everything in one place. Ops Handbook will
be the guide for chairs and WG, and some information it might be
duplicated.
LH: Chairs and Team
LR: Even better. Ops GL will be the guide with a different target.
LH: The Chairs and Team need to present to the WG directly as soon as
possible how to work out the details.
KD: We have to be very careful to the targets. Different readers for
different documents.
LH: Is the Handbook for Chairs and team?
KD: yes, agreed for me.
(Lynne had to left)
PC: If the handbook says nothing at all where do you get your tests
from? You will have to address that. What would be the distinction
between Handbook and Test GL?
KD: I will put things which belong to the WG and management issues in
Handbook. And things which are technical for the test suite
developpers. We should not forget the communications between the two.
PC: How will it be done concretely
LH: Lynne has said it a bit there's an overlaping sometimes. Lofton
giving examples. (Framework for contribution process.) You have contact
with the external word (handbook) but at the same time you might want
how you deal practically with the test (Test GL). It doesn't hurt to
have two things at the same time but with different target audiences.
PC: If it's not normative, it will be less a problem to have
information at both place.
LH, KD: agreed
DM: There might be a doc technique for example.
WG agreed on moving forward and accept that the Test GL Lite to have a
practical part under the form of GLs and have a non normative part
which is more a guide to deal with the process.
LH: for example, should a review process, be normative part?
PC: It doesn't really succeeded. I think it should not be normative.
LH: Yes I think I can agree with that.
DD: One thing that we could miss. We may miss parts of requirements
and links between different steps in submissions. I'm inclined to be
more stringent.
(Discussion about the test submission process)
KD: I would propose to first write the document and see in which parts
this kind of things will belong
PC: Yes reasonnable
LH: Let's work first on a concrete things.
DD: You may want to have information because it will be asked.
PC: I have a kind of related questions to the proposed structure of
document. The outline of the document is a kind of the structure of
principles, small numbers with requirements, gl and examples.
(no particular comments)
KD: Do you plan to have a timeline for your principles?
PC: there's no time dependency in the principles.
LH. Yes it seems like that. Are they atomistic?
PC: the goal is to have to small independant principles
LH: So we might have modules, so we will be able to develop them
individually.
PC: Yes Right.
* Next F2F
LH: All proposals must be sent before the end of this week with
time constraints in mail too.
--
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***